| Literature DB >> 35055919 |
Hye-Jeong Jun1, Kyoung-Su Kim2, Eun-Hye Ham1.
Abstract
This study presented biological and economic data for the mass-rearing of Orius minutus in Korea. Simplifying the mass-rearing process through an alternative diet and an artificial oviposition substrate is a prerequisite for enhancing the usability of this insect as a biological control agent. We compare the hatch rate of O. minutus eggs deposited on a plant substrate with that of eggs deposited on two artificial substrates, cork sheets and rubber. The results indicate that cork sheet is the most cost-effective artificial oviposition substrate for the mass-rearing of O. minutus. We also examine five feeding treatments that included two types of brine shrimp eggs and eggs of Ephestia cautella to compare the number of eggs laid in the fifth generation. We found no significant difference between the two treatment groups; 61.3 eggs were laid in the treatment group fed iron-coated brine shrimp and moth eggs, and 67.4 eggs were laid in the control group. The plant-free model developed in our study can reduce rearing costs by 70.5% compared to the conventional mass-rearing model.Entities:
Keywords: Orius minutus; artificial oviposition substrate; iron-coated brine shrimp eggs; plant-free rearing; zoophytophagy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055919 PMCID: PMC8779347 DOI: 10.3390/insects13010077
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
The effect of moisture source on the development of Orius minutus reared on Ephestiea cautella eggs 1.
| Treatment | Developmental Time (Days) | Nymphal Survival (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Plant | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 93.3 ± 9.4 |
| Plant and water dome | 11.9 ± 0.99 | 100.0 ± 0.0 |
| Plant and honey-water dome | 12.1 ± 0.4 | 100.0 ± 0.0 |
| Water dome | 12.9 ± 0.1 | 86.7 ± 9.4 |
| Honey-water dome | 12.7 ± 0.1 | 86.7 ± 18.9 |
| Control (no moisture source) | 0 |
1 Values represent means ± standard deviation; n = 15 for each treatment. No significant differences were found among the first five treatments for developmental time or nymphal survival (p > 0.05).
Number of oviposited eggs per three pairs of Orius minutus and egg hatch (%) on different oviposition schemes 1.
| Oviposition Substrate | No. of Eggs | Egg Hatch (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Cork | 13.1 ± 2.4 a | 0 b |
| Rubber band | 4.1 ± 4.7 b | 0 b |
| Plant | 12.3 ± 4.1 a | 71.6 ± 0.9 a |
1 Values represent means ± standard deviation; n = 40 sets of three pairs for each substrate. Values followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Figure 1Oviposition preference of Orius minutus. (A) The analysis was conducted using 1-mm, 3-mm, and 5-mm thick cork substrates. (B) Thickness and texture were analyzed together using 3-mm and 5-mm thick, smooth and rough cork substrates. In total, 60 pairs of adults were used in each experiment. The different letters on the standard error bars indicate significant differences between means at Type I error = 0.05.
Figure 2Eggs of Orius minutus on rough cork substrates of different thickness ((A) 1 mm, (B) 3 mm, (C) 5 mm) and eggs on plant substrate (D).
Figure 3Smooth cork substrate without eggs of Orius minutus (A) and rough cork substrate with eggs (B).
Hatching rate of Orius minutus using six different moisture sources.
| Treatment | Oviposition Substrate 1 | Moisture Source 3 | Egg Hatch (%) 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Cork sheet | 149 | Oasis, vermiculite, and buckwheat husk with water | 72.8 ± 3.6 a |
| T2 | Cork sheet | 144 | Vermiculite and buckwheat husk with water | 34.7 ± 4.6 c |
| T3 | Cork sheet | 233 | Oasis with water | 68.8 ± 4.1 a |
| T4 | Cork sheet | 157 | Oasis with water (only after egg-laying) | 51.5 ± 4.1 b |
| T5 | Cork sheet | 213 | 0 d | |
| Control | Plant | 166 | 71.6 ± 0.9 a |
1 Cork sheet size: 5 × 0.5 cm. 2 n: number of eggs per treatment. 3 Oasis size: 6 × 2 × 2 cm; volume of vermiculite, buckwheat husk and water: 100, 225, and 30 mL, respectively. 4 Values represent means ± standard deviation, values followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Figure 4Wet rough cork with oasis attached (A) and hatched eggs of Orius minutus on rough cork substrate with oasis attached (B).
Developmental time and survival rate experienced by Orius minutus under three different diet sources 1.
| Diet 2 | Developmental Time | Survival (%) | % Egg Laying Females | No. of Eggs Deposited |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | 12.1 ± 0.4 (15) a | 72.7 ± 3.8 (167) a | 92.6 ± 6.4 (27) a | 3.8 ± 0.7 (25) a |
| I | 14.0 ± 0.2 (15) a | 67.5 ± 3.7 (167) a | 100.0 ± 0.0 (28) a | 4.8 ± 0.2 (28) a |
| G | 19.9 ± 2.2 (16) b | 11.4 ± 1.3 (174) b | 0 (19) b | - |
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of individuals per treatment group. Values represent means ± standard deviation, values followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). 2 E, Ephestia cautella egg; I, Iron-coated brine shrimp eggs; G, Granular brine shrimp eggs.
Figure 5Mean developmental time (days) of Orius minutus by generation (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th) and diet type (I/I, fed I to nymphs and adults, E/I, fed E to nymphs and I to adults, E/G, fed E to nymphs and G to adults, E+I/E+I, fed E+I to nymphs and adults, E+G/E+G, fed E+G to nymphs and adults, E/E, fed E to nymphs and adults). Different letters on the standard error bars for each diet category indicate significant differences between means at Type I error = 0.05.
Mean fecundity of Orius minutus by generations and diets 1.
| Diets | Fecundity (± S.D.) for Ten Days after Egg Laying/Generation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | |
| E/E | 62.9 ± 9.3 (27) a | 63.7 ± 7.5 (25) a | 63.6 ± 12.2 (21) a | 68.8 ± 12.7 (17) a | 76.9 ± 5.7 (18) a |
| I/I | 36.4 ± 6.2 (64) b | 25.3 ± 9.8 (26) b | 39.3 ± 7.1 (24) b | 27.2 ± 0.9 (48) b | 22.4 ± 3.2 (56) c |
| G/G | - | - | - | - | - |
| E/I | 44.7 ± 3.6 (64) b | 36.1 ± 2.8 (66) b | 31.6 ± 4.1 (62) b | 32.5 ± 3.9 (50) b | 21.6 ± 4.1 (70) c |
| E/G | 13.2 ± 2.0 (62) c | 21.8 ± 4.2 (62) b | 28.8 ± 5.4 (42) b | 11.4 ± 2.7 (48) c | 9.0 ± 0.6 (64) c |
| E+I/E+I | 69.0 ± 0.2 (70) a | 68.7 ± 5.5 (62) a | 62.4 ± 4.1 (70) a | 60.5 ± 2.3 (62) a | 53.5 ± 6.2 (70) b |
| E+G/E+G | 73.9 ± 3.7 (72) a | 74.0 ± 2.2 (68) a | 44.4 ± 5.5 (66) ab | 66.5 ± 2.1 (70) a | 63.2 ± 3.4 (22) b |
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of individuals per treatment group. Values (means ± standard deviation) followed by the same letter on the same column are not significantly different (p > 0.05). 2 The diets consisted of 0.1 g of eggs of Ephestia cautella (E), iron-coated brine shrimp eggs (I), or granular brine shrimp eggs (G). (E/E, fed E to nymphs and adults, I/I, fed I to nymphs and adults, G/G, fed G to nymphs and adults, E/I, fed E to nymphs and I to adults, E/G, fed E to nymphs and G to adults, E+I/E+I, fed E+I to nymphs and adults, E+G/E+G, fed E+G to nymphs and adults).
Comparison of ecological characteristics according to two different rearing systems of Orius minutus 1.
| Treatment | Survival (%) | Developmental | Fecundity/Day | Hatching Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rearing on plants | 92.3 ± 4.7 (109) a | 19.6 ± 0.6 (109) a | 73.1 ± 8.3 (35) a | 71.6 ± 0.9 (166) a |
| Plant-free rearing | 90.1 ± 5.1 (33) a | 19.2 ± 0.2 (33) a | 78.3 ± 7.1 (25) a | 72.8 ± 3.6 (149) a |
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to the number of individuals per treatment group. Values (means ± standard deviation) followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Figure 6Flow chart of mass-rearing of Orius minutus. Y means passing the quality control result, and n means failing the quality control result.
Economic analysis of two different oviposition materials to make 40 products of Orius minutus (500 pieces per product).
| Mass-Rearing Model of RDA (2014) 1 | Plant-Free Rearing Model |
|---|---|
| Total Cost $507.42 | Total Cost $149.67 |
Oviposition Plant-Related Costs = $222.65 | Oviposition Plant-Related Costs = $4.03 |
| Soil (50 L): $8.22 × 1 ea. = $8.22 | Oasis (23 × 11 × 8 cm): $0.63 × 2 ea. = $1.26 |
| Rearing box (49 × 38 × 8 cm): $3.02 × 2 ea. = $6.04 | |
| Cage (50 × 47 × 37 cm): $83.89 × 2 ea. = $167.77 | |
Food-related costs 2 = $281.86 | Food-related costs = $145.65 |
1 Source: Rural Development Administration [43]. 2 Source: Korea Forest Service [24].